UK defence issues and the odd container or two

Urgent Operational Requirements

Being woefully unprepared for entirely predictable risks despite a multi billion pound defence budget or flexibly responding to unforeseen requirements in a slick and efficient manner are the two faces of the Urgent Operational Requirement system.

How much the next operation will be supported by the Treasury funelling cash into the MoD, how many of the known full well capability gaps that the MoD hope will be filled by future UOR’s and how much the system as a whole continues to evolve, one thing is for certain, a lot of money has been spent.

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on Urgent Operational Requirements by (a) theatre and (b) equipment type in each of the last 10 years; and which such funding was provided from a Treasury budget.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 20 December 2012, c901W)

Philip Dunne (Ludlow, Conservative)
The required information is not held in the format requested prior to financial year 2008-09. The amount spent on Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) and claimed by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) against the HM Treasury Reserve, since financial year 2008-09 is presented in the following table.

£ million
Theatre 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Afghanistan 838 774 794 415
Iraq 223 45 -3 0
Total operations and peace-keeping UOR spend 1,061 819 791 415

 

£ million
Equipment type Theatre 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Helicopter (Ground Attack, Tactile Transport—Aircraft and aircrew protection) Afghanistan 95 133 95 46
Iraq 33 7 2 0
Total 128 140 97 46
Aircraft (Ground Attack, Strategic and Tactile Transport—Aircraft and aircrew protection) Afghanistan 72 48 12 21
Iraq 10 1 0 0
Total 83 49 12 21

 

Soldier equipment (protection, clothing, combat equipment) Afghanistan 62 73 52 13
Iraq 9 5 0 0
Total 72 78 52 13
Communications (voice and data transfer) Afghanistan 0 26 54 15
Iraq 0 0 0 0
Total 0 27 54 15
ISTARIntelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance Afghanistan 25 69 50 81
Iraq 13 0 0 0
Total 38 69 50 81
Ground manoeuvre (protected mobility) Afghanistan 436 252 351 78
Iraq 87 5 -1 0
Total 523 257 350 78
Fire power (guns, missiles and rockets) Afghanistan 4 11 28 3
Iraq 5 2 0 0
Total 9 12 28 3
Protection (C-IED/military working dogs, soldier protection (ECM)) Afghanistan 68 90 79 99
Iraq 20 17 0 0
Total 88 107 79 99
Sustainment (medical, battlefield utilities) Afghanistan 0 9 8 11
Iraq 0 0 0 0
Total 1 9 8 II
Unmanned aerial vehicles Afghanistan 44 25 11 1
Iraq 17 0 0 0
Total 61 26 II 1
Information management/Information exploitation Afghanistan 31 36 54 48
Iraq 25 5 -3 0
Total 55 41 50 48
Maritime (ship electronic warfare) Iraq 3 3 0 0
Total 3 3 0 0

 

Total operations and peace-keeping UOR spend 1,061 819 791 415
Notes: 1. All figures rounded to nearest £ million. 2. The negative figures presented against Iraq in financial year 2010-11 relate to the final reconciliation of project accounts.

 


 

 

What I find more troubling is the fact that the MoD is unable to account for the numbers before 2008/09

 

About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

6 Comments

  1. Observer

    I’m more curious about how did they come up with negative numbers for some of the years. Taken into core? Sold as surplus? Very creative accounting/black marketing? :)

  2. John

    @mike w
    I was wondering that, I know we live in a touchy feely world these days, but that is just weird :)

  3. ArmChairCivvy

    Glad to see that ISTAR and information exploitation are pushing through in the, as such, declining numbers. I understand that exactly such projects that can’t be just ordered off-the-shelf, but are multi-year, have suffered in the last ten years of ‘short-termism’

Comments are closed.

↓